Holy shit a cop got charged for shooting someone!

[Sodalite]

@Ferret_Herder

Since you included my less-generous-to-the-victim post as an example of judgement, it would have been nice if you’d included the one from me two posts before it about how perhaps he had a head injury, had lost hearing, etc., and might have been unable to communicate his problem to anyone.

I thought the “people are racist as fuck” angle had been covered appropriately already so I didn’t comment on that.

Sorry, I was distracted and interrupted several times while reading and trying to post. I missed your previous comment.

[Dorjan]

What this incident and the NYC one (where two bystanders were shot) highlights to me is that police seem far to likely to jump to using their firearms these days when the situation doesn’t warrant it. What ever happened to using billy clubs and tonfas to subdue a suspect? Not that I condone police violence and brutality, but getting your ass beat by a couple of panicking cops as a worst case scenario still trumps getting shot to death, every day.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Mosier

I disagree. Regular citizens ought to have a duty to retreat, but not police officers. Their job is to stand in the charging maniac’s way.

I agree.

@Mosier

Did you actually read any articles regarding the incidents Bo mentioned? They are absolutely tragedies, maybe even criminal, but they’re not as black and white as he presented them.

For example, Stanley Gibson, who was “unarmed and sitting in his car, which was blocked by other vehicles.” Bo is presenting the story in a way that’s downright deceitful.

I disagree; there is no attempt to deceive. I simply did not want this thread, which is about Jonathon Ferrell’s shooting, to become unnecessarily derailed so I didn’t go into detail nor did I link to articles about the incidents I listed. Clearly that didn’t work out as well as I had hoped.

@Mosier

First, Gibson had the engine running, and was deliberately ramming vehicles with people inside, and attempted to hit people with his vehicle (but was prevented from doing so by the police, who pinned him with their vehicles).

This is deceptive. I don’t recall, nor could I find, any news article that describe Gibson “deliberately ramming vehicles with people inside” and certainly I could find nothing that supports the impression you seem to be trying to make that he was thus targeting occupied vehicles as opposed to simply hitting vehicles regardless of whether they were occupied or not.

Your characterization of him as dangerous even while driving is wildly at odds with witness accounts.
[

Several residents who witnessed the shooting or the events leading up to it spoke to the Review-Journal this week.

Bob, who asked to be identified only by his first name for fear of retribution, said Tuesday that he had a clear view of Gibson’s car.

A spotlight was shined directly on the window, he said. Gibson did not appear to be a threat.

“If he had been waving a gun around, that’s one thing, and I wouldn’t have much sympathy,” he said. “But the guy was pinned and had nowhere to go, and there must have been 10 guns trained on him at any given time. So why pump a bunch of shots into the guy?”

A video provided to the Review-Journal that captured the shooting showed that the tires on Gibson’s car were smoking and spinning as he revved the engine, but the car was stationary when shots were fired.

Bob said he and several other residents were evacuated and didn’t see the shooting, but Bob said he saw Gibson’s car circling the apartment complex with its emergency lights flashing a few hours before police arrived.

“He was driving about 2 mph,” Bob said. “He looked lost.”

](Las Vegas News | Breaking News & Headlines | Las Vegas Review-Journal)
Also, there is no evidence or testimony to support the assertion that Gibson was attempting to hit people with his vehicle after police had him blocked in. The testimony and video evidence shows that he revved his engine and spun his tires several times, but as his vehicle was unable to move, it seems, ah, unlikely that he could have attempted to hit anyone with a stationary vehicle.

@Mosier

Second, hindsight indicates Gibson may have been experiencing a psychotic episode, as he had been committed to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation (which didn’t happen before he was discharged) and had been to jail for causing bizarre disturbances, all over the previous two days. (This part wasn’t known to the officers on scene, but it puts into perspective the state of mind this guy was in at the time). He was mentally ill and emotionally unstable, and he ignored all commands to stop the vehicle, and was attempting to ram his way out at the time he was shot.

Third, the tactic the police were going to use to get him out of the vehicle involved shooting bean bag rounds through the driver side window, followed by pepper spray. The police did not know whether he was armed at the time. The plan was changed to have officers fire the non-lethal round through the passenger window. The officer who shot Gibson was not told of this change in plans. He heard a gunshot at an unexpected time, and saw the passenger window shatter, which he also did not expect. He assumed the shot came from within the vehicle. He showed incredibly poor judgment by firing his weapon (and the police showed a great deal of incompetence in general), but under the circumstances I certainly wouldn’t call it murder.

This is (mostly) accurate, but I don’t recall that Officer Arevalo “was not told of this change in plans”. AFAIK, all officers were told of the change, some claimed that radios were not working properly and they did not hear certain things. Officer Arevalo refused to speak to investigators afterward, so we don’t know what he heard or did not hear. Cite. We do know that he knew the plan was to take Gibson alive. Cite.

@Mosier

Fourth, the officer who shot Gibson was fired. No, he wasn’t charged with a crime. Maybe he should have been, but I think it would have been difficult to convince a jury he committed murder. Even though he wasn’t charged, it’s not exactly like the picture people some are painting about rampaging police killing people with impunity and suffering no consequences.

FWIW, I never termed any of the incidents murder. I agree that in the Gibson case, a murder charge would have been impossible to prove.

@Mosier

The other incidents Bo mentioned have similarly important details left out.

I disagree that any details in the Orlando Barlowe or the Swuave Lopez cases mitigate the officers involved. And yes, I discount an officer’s use of the magic words “I thought maybe I saw him make a furtive movement” since here in Nevada, that’s all they have to say to legally excuse their actions.

@Mosier

I agree that the police are overly militarized in their training, they don’t have nearly enough oversight (especially from non-police entities), their union is too influential, the police have too much power in general, and have deservedly lost much the support and respect of their community. But let’s be rational about it. The police aren’t monsters just waiting for the chance to kill people.

I have not tried to paint officers in that light and in fact agree with your statements here. BUT, it is true that because of the way that the laws are written and because of the reluctance of police officers to ever say anything detrimental about another officer, police are able to kill people without fear of incarceration. The history of Nevada is my cite.

[Magiver]

@Dorjan

What this incident and the NYC one (where two bystanders were shot) highlights to me is that police seem far to likely to jump to using their firearms these days when the situation doesn’t warrant it. What ever happened to using billy clubs and tonfas to subdue a suspect? Not that I condone police violence and brutality, but getting your ass beat by a couple of panicking cops as a worst case scenario still trumps getting shot to death, every day.

exactly.

According to this article the officer fired 12 rounds hitting him with 10. It has me wondering if this was a drug induced incident since Mr Ferrell supposedly wasn’t fazed by the taser and took 10 rounds. He must have been a fairly robust guy to be on the A&M football team but still, 10 rounds.

I don’t understand why 3 policeman can’t deal with someone who isn’t holding a gun or knife without resorting to shooting them. A baton induced pile-on would seem to be the right course of action.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

We don’t know that the taser leads even hit Mr. Farrell. In none of the articles I’ve read have they indicated anything other than a taser was fired.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Magiver

I don’t understand why 3 policeman can’t deal with someone who isn’t holding a gun or knife without resorting to shooting them. A baton induced pile-on would seem to be the right course of action.

Is the plan to “pile-on” the guy while your guns are still on your belts?

[Machine_Elf]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Is the plan to “pile-on” the guy while your guns are still on your belts?

Judging from “COPS,” this happens from time to time and isn’t an issue. My understanding is that security holsters are widely (if not universally) used; these require a very specific/deliberate sequence of actions in order to free the gun from the holster, something a perp isn’t likely to achieve during a wrestling match.

[Magiver]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Is the plan to “pile-on” the guy while your guns are still on your belts?

Yes, it’s done with take down’s all the time.

[you_with_the_face]

@Magiver

exactly.

According to this article the officer fired 12 rounds hitting him with 10. It has me wondering if this was a drug induced incident since Mr Ferrell supposedly wasn’t fazed by the taser and took 10 rounds. He must have been a fairly robust guy to be on the A&M football team but still, 10 rounds.

Your mistake is in assuming it took 10 shots to knock him down. Bullets 2 through 10 could have entered a dead man. You don’t know.

[SirGalahad]

@you_with_the_face

Your mistake is in assuming it took 10 shots to knock him down. Bullets 2 through 10 could have entered a dead man. You don’t know.

The reason cops unload into the shooting victim is because they don’t want to just stop you, they want you dead so you can’t testify against them. This told to me by cops. Take it or leave it. I’ve also been advised by cops that if you as a civilian have to shoot in self-defense, try to make the shots killing shots, because a dead opponent will cause you slightly less trouble post shooting, compared to a crippled criminal testifying from a wheelchair.

[toofs]

This police officer will not be convicted. Remember the police officers in Los Angeles who shot two different vehicles without a proper justification for the use of deadly force? Those officers tried to kill people without a positive identification of Dorner. “Look, partner, a vehicle! Shoot it up!”

They will all keep their jobs.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Did we ever actually find out what happened to those L.A. Cops? I don’t recall seeing anything about them after that incident.

[Honesty]

@Der_Trihs

The word of the police is worthless, and I see no reason to buy that for a moment. Under the circumstances it seems far more likely that they decided to kill him simply because he he was a black man and therefore automatically deserving of death. The standard attitude of the police, in other words.

Der Trihs, as Aaron McGruder comically pointed out in his animated cartoon The Boondocks, the amount of white people can handle the truth is vanishingly small. For example, white people will say that racism doesn’t exist or that it doesn’t matter, though if you give them scientific evidence to the contrary, they’ll stare at you dumbfounded. In this paper, white adults had higher neural activity in their amygdala when confronted with black faces. So, it’s very likely this white woman saw the black man knocking on her door and believed her life was in danger due to her own implicit biases. Though she did not pull the trigger, she might as well had.

• Honesty

[iiandyiiii]

@Honesty

Der Trihs, as Aaron McGruder comically pointed out in his animated cartoon The Boondocks, the amount of white people can handle the truth is vanishingly small. For example, white people will say that racism doesn’t exist or that it doesn’t matter, though if you give them scientific evidence to the contrary, they’ll stare at you dumbfounded. In this paper, white adults had higher neural activity in their amygdala when confronted with black faces. So, it’s very likely this white woman saw the black man knocking on her door and believed her life was in danger due to her own implicit biases. Though she did not pull the trigger, she might as well had.

• Honesty

I don’t think that’s fair to the woman who called the police. Calling the police is very, very different than shooting someone. Calling the police too often is not a major problem in our society – black people getting shot for no good reason is.

[PunditLisa]

@Honesty

So, it’s very likely this white woman saw the black man knocking on her door and believed her life was in danger due to her own implicit biases. Though she did not pull the trigger, she might as well had.

I think it’s extremely likely that this woman saw a very large, strange MAN banging (not knocking) on her door at 2am, and believed that her life might be in danger due to her own implicit physical weakness compared to a man’s. You can argue that his race might have added to her fear, but you cannot argue that her fear, BASED ONLY ON HIS BEHAVIOR, was quite legitimate.

[Bricker]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I disagree that any details in the Orlando Barlowe or the Swuave Lopez cases mitigate the officers involved. And yes, I discount an officer’s use of the magic words “I thought maybe I saw him make a furtive movement” since here in Nevada, that’s all they have to say to legally excuse their actions.

Does the accused officer have to prove to you that he is not guilty, or do you regard the claim as something you have to prove against him?

[GusNSpot]

@Bricker

Does the accused officer have to prove to you that he is not guilty, or do you regard the claim as something you have to prove against him?

No fair using this in a thread like this. This is not what is wanted because of this, people have very little recourse about this in a ranting form…

Bawahahahaha

[Chicagojeff]

You know… no one makes you sign up for the job… you know the rules… you know the law… you know the applications and danger… They give you a shitload of stuff around your belt and considerable (compared to my dad’s time) defensive tactics training…
You can’t shoot him… not armed… had not actually committed any offense (No… ignoring an order from a police officer is NOT A CRIME). In the moment all the officer was doing was responding to a suspicious person call… If you can’t control your scene… if your presence is so shitty that this is your only option… then sell cars… You’ll probably make more money… Sell insurance… again… you’re going to probably make more money…
No excuses… they’ll do a toxicology on the victim… it’ll come back clean… a trial will occur… the officer will show up with his family… shitload of support and they’ll end up either pleading it down or getting some sort of probation…
As in this case… It’s a job with a lot LOT of responsibility… everytime you suit up you know that… no excuses… I’ve seen this growing lately… Younger officers very nervous about controlling people… scenes… etc… sometimes resulting in getting themselves hurt… but again… this is on the Dept for lack of training…and the officer for violating his oath and the law…
WAR INA BABYLON: Revisiting the Police Murder of Kenneth Brian Walker

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Bricker

Does the accused officer have to prove to you that he is not guilty, or do you regard the claim as something you have to prove against him?

Unanswerable question in the manner you ask it. Can you re-phrase?

[Bricker]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Unanswerable question in the manner you ask it. Can you re-phrase?

Well, you said, “And yes, I discount an officer’s use of the magic words ‘I thought maybe I saw him make a furtive movement’ since here in Nevada, that’s all they have to say to legally excuse their actions.”

To me, that reads as though you expect the officer to excuse his actions. I’m wondering if that’s a correct assumption on my part. In other words, must the officer prove something to you?